Nothalogh

It would be a false dichotomy if it weren't the de-facto standard operating procedure of all the parties heretofore involved, for the last fifty years. They blew up five, if I remember correctly, Atlas SM-65s before they got one to fly. THAT is the standard I want to see a return to.

That means you just aren't producing enough thrust to go with all that ISP.

Anyone who says otherwise is self evidently a heretic

Come on, now, you're a KSP player. Anything downrange of the pad is some kind of success, when unmanned. And any landing you walk away from is a good landing, when manned. And all this wailing and gnashing of teeth is childish at best, the alternative is to do this the post-Apollo NASA way, which would add twenty years and ten times the budget for a quarter of the initially intended features. Sorry, not sorry, I don't want another Space Shuttle, and neither should you.

By exterminating humans?

Aye, but we're kind of stuck with the humans and their constructs. So that may as well be a law on par with that of physics.

Not entirely true, there is also the political dimension of any project, but that can be dealt with by bringing to bear a sufficient amount of shame and bullying.

Blue Origin would first have to build engines

Starship isn't beholden to NASA's design tomfoolery

This is the one that always sticks with me

If it doesn't register on the Richter scale, it's not a rocket.

Send multiple vehicles per transfer window, each trying a slightly different EDL pattern. We don't have time for your tomfoolery.

You dream too small

Ship is inherently vault. Build city on top of ship. Evacuate to ship. Launch city/ship.

Why not combine the two?